Appeal 6002245

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, including its effect of on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Framework establishes that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to the exceptions listed at paragraphs 154 and 155.

One such exception, at paragraph 154g), is the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out that the development of homes in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the criteria listed apply.

[name] note the wording of footnote 55, this needs to be read alongside the requirement of 154g) and that any development of PDL needs to not cause substantial harm to openness. Footnote 55 does not provide a blanket approval for all PDL in the Green Belt.

Policy EN1 of the Mole Valley Local Plan 2020-2039 (2024) (LP) states that land which is designated as Metropolitan Green Belt will be protected against inappropriate development, as defined by national policy. Criterion g. of this policy reflects the exception at paragraph 154 g) of the Framework but applies a stricter test: new development must not have a greater impact on openness than the existing development. This appears to be rooted in the previous version of the Framework. As such, I have afforded limited weight to this policy in this respect. Paragraph 154g)

Annex 2 of the Framework defines PDL as land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed). On this basis, only the part of the appeal site containing the hardstanding and detached outbuilding qualifies as PDL. The largely undeveloped scrubland beyond the hardstanding, does not meet this definition. Its redevelopment would therefore conflict with paragraph 154g) of the Framework and with Policy EN1 criterion (g).

The Framework sets out that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. The matters relevant to openness are a matter of planning judgement, and the openness of the Green Belt has a spatial aspect as well as a visual aspect. The appeal site is largely undeveloped and benefits from vegetation on one side boundary and on the rear boundary. Although the site has limited visibility from public vantage points, the absence of public views does not in itself mean that there is no impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Even if the scheme were to be regarded as the re-development of PDL, the existing outbuilding is a small structure partly nestled in the existing vegetation with a limited visual presence. By contrast, the proposal would introduce a new residential plot in this location, including associated activity in terms of vehicular movements.

Despite its single storey height, the dwelling would be considerably larger in scale and massing than the outbuilding it seeks to replace. The associated residential paraphernalia, including long drive, boundary treatments and garden, would result in the introduction of a significant amount of built development across a predominantly undeveloped parcel of land. This would reduce the spatial openness of the Green Belt. In addition, the dwelling would be placed further away from the trees, so it would be more exposed within the site eroding visual openness.

Although the proposed building would be perceived in the context of surrounding development, the scheme would nonetheless diminish openness in this location because of its siting, scale and sprawl of built form. While details of soft landscaping could be secured by condition, were I minded to allow the appeal, screening of the site with planting would be contrived insofar as it would further reduce the sense of openness within the site. Together, the combined effects on the visual and spatial openness of the Green Belt in this location would be substantial.

The proposal was submitted on the basis it would replace three outbuildings, albeit two of these have been demolished. The assessment of openness should be made against the site’s current condition. Still, even if the comparison were made against the historic situation when three outbuildings occupied the site, the evidence indicates that taken together these structures would have been more modest in footprint and scale than the proposed dwelling. In addition, they would have been located on the existing hardstanding. The proposal, by contrast, would result in a sprawl of development across the site, including over areas which are currently undeveloped. Accordingly, having regard to both the current and former circumstances, the proposal would have a substantial impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

For the above reasons, I find the development would not be consistent with the exception at paragraph 154g) of the Framework. Paragraph 155

The Glossary to the Framework sets out the definition of grey belt. It is land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143. The parties agree that the appeal site would fall within the definition of grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. I see no reason to take a different view on this matter. As such, the proposal would satisfy criterion a. under paragraph 155.

The parties dispute whether there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. In the case of housing, footnote 56 of the Framework indicates that in the case of applications involving the provision of housing, this means the lack of a five-year supply of deliverable sites, including the relevant buffer where applicable, or where the [name] (HDT) was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years.

The Council can currently demonstrate a 5.1-year supply of housing, which includes a 20% buffer, and achieved 78% in the latest HDT published in 2024. Since the Council’s latest housing land supply position already includes a 20% buffer, and the HDT test result is above 75%, and without any credible evidence to refute the Council’s position, there is a strong indication that a deliverable five-year supply of housing land exists in the area. As such, there is no demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. The scheme would therefore fail to meet the requirements of paragraph 155b.

Paragraph 155 criterion c. relates to development being within a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework. I am also mindful that the Highway Authority did not raise an objection to the proposal. However, the absence of such an objection does not, in itself, render the scheme acceptable in planning terms.

The appeal site lies between Leigh and Betchworth, which offer a range of services and facilities to cater for day-to-day needs. Both settlements can be reached from the site via [site address] . This road is subject to a 40mph speed limit, it is an unlit countryside single carriage road which does not have a pedestrian footpath or dedicated cycle lane. The grass verges are generally narrow and sited between the carriageway and the hedges or ditches along the side of the road. At points, the verges accommodate street furniture, such as traffic signs, which users would be required to negotiate.

Accordingly, whilst I acknowledge that the settlements are within a reasonable distance of the site, walking as a matter of routine would not be a viable option, particularly in poor weather conditions, due to the slippery ground and during the winter months, due to the shorter days. Cycling would be unattractive for all but experienced cyclists. In terms of public transport, the appellant indicates that the closest bus stops are some 800m away, however reaching them would require walking or cycling in [site address] , making them an unattractive option.

The appellant’s Highways and Transport Appeal Statement refers to the local network of public rights of way. However, as I observed in my site visit, aside from the footpath that runs along part of the main site access from [site address] , the nearby footpaths are generally unmade, uneven and unlit routes that cross fields and /or woodlands, therefore unsuitable for everyday use.

Drawing all the above together, the appeal site is not within a location which is, or can be made, sustainable. Opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas but, overall, the characteristics of [site address] would be likely to encourage residents to heavily favour the use of the private motor vehicle for convenience and safety. Therefore, there would be a dependency upon private motor vehicles even for shorter journeys, to the detriment of sustainable transport solutions. On this basis, the proposal would fail to satisfy criterion c of paragraph 155 of the Framework.

For the above reasons, I find the development would not accord with paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Accordingly, the proposal would not meet the requirements of paragraphs 154g) or 155 of the Framework, nor there is any suggestion that the scheme would accord with any of the other exceptions. The proposal would also conflict with LP Policy EN1, which seeks to control inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The proposed development would contribute to the housing stock within the Borough by delivering a self-build/custom built dwelling on a windfall site. The development could be built out relatively quickly. However, given the small-scale nature of the scheme, I can only ascribe moderate weight in favour of the scheme.

There would be some economic benefits associated with the construction process, and future residents would support local services within nearby villages. However, the extent to which this would be beneficial is limited by the small-scale nature of the scheme. It therefore carries limited weight in support of the proposal.

The appellant draws my attention to a previous planning permission for an extension to the host property1 granted by the Council. However, a residential 1 [name]/2009/0444 extension is different from a new dwelling, which includes the creation of associated features, including garden and access drive. As such, this permission carries very limited weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

Reference is made to an allowed appeal decision2 pertaining to new dwellings in the Green Belt. Nevertheless, the assessment of openness of the Green Belt depends on the specific circumstances of each case. The limited details provided regarding the planning permission3 for a new dwelling in a neighbouring property granted by the Council indicate that this consent related to the conversion of existing stables. Therefore, I am not persuaded that these examples would be directly comparable with the scheme before me. Moreover, I have not been provided with the full details and circumstances of the schemes referred to in the appellant’s Design and [name], and therefore I am unable to draw any meaningful comparison with the appeal scheme. As such, I have determined the appeal in its own merits.

Abbots and [name] are two [name] listed buildings located near the site. Mindful of the statutory duty set in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have had regard to the desirability of preserving their settings. The built backdrop and verdant surroundings of these heritage assets, of which the appeal site forms part, positively contribute to their significance. Nevertheless, the location and extent of the proposed development would preserve their settings.

The appeal proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which the Framework establishes is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances (VSC). The Framework sets out that for VSC to exist, the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal must be clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt and there would also be substantial harm to its openness. The Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Taken together, the other considerations presented in this appeal carry no more than moderate weight. Therefore, very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the development’s harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, do not exist.

Therefore, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR 2 Appeal Ref: APP/C3620/W/25/3369415 3 [name]/14/1919